Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote:The key word would therefore appear to be 'arificiality'.

That's a good summary.
But I am confused. What were you getting at with your original question ?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:The key word would therefore appear to be 'arificiality'.

That's a good summary.
But I am confused. What were you getting at with your original question ?

I believe the question's aim is self-evident. Precisely what is confusing you?

Fortigurn wrote:{This is directed towards our non-Christians.
Is it possible to determine whether or not a entity is the product of design? If so, how? }
{I believe the question's aim is self-evident. Precisely what is confusing you?}

1) Why direct the question to non-Christians ? Do you feel that Christians and non-Christians should necessarily have different answers to your question ?
2) Are you interested in determining whether something is designed ?
3) Are you a proponent or opponent of design and want to know why others might disagree with you ?
4) Was the answer sufficient or was it lacking in some way ?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:{This is directed towards our non-Christians.
Is it possible to determine whether or not a entity is the product of design? If so, how? }
{I believe the question's aim is self-evident. Precisely what is confusing you?}

1) Why direct the question to non-Christians ? Do you feel that Christians and non-Christians should necessarily have different answers to your question ?

No, but non-Christians in my experience typically do have different answers to Christians. The majority of non-Christians I have posed this question to insist that it is not possible to distinguish from designed and undesigned entities.

2) Are you interested in determining whether something is designed ?

Yes. I did rather think that the question would have suggested this strongly.

3) Are you a proponent or opponent of design and want to know why others might disagree with you ?

I believe that the universe and all things in it was designed, but I do not hold to any one particular interpretation of the process of design. I am interested in establishing common ground with non-Christians on the subject of the design argument, and this is the logical place to start, since if you do not believe that it is possible to distinguish between designed and undesigned entities, the converation cannot procede any further.

4) Was the answer sufficient or was it lacking in some way ?

I believe it's a start. Now we need to determine how we can identify arificiality.

Well this seems to have tanked.

Fortigurn wrote:

Cougar wrote:I don't think scientists in the SETI project are looking to prove design.

I am not arguing that they are looking to prove design.

"The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe."

I don't see anywhere in there it says they have to attribute their findings to design. There are other ways of exploring the nature of the universe and possible life in the universe without attributing it to design. Prevalence of certain chemicals, molecules, and red or blue shifting is very helpful in the exploration of possible life elsewhere.

What does 'Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence' mean to you? People are looking for radio signals which are the product of an intelligence. They do this on the assumption that they can recognise radio signals which are the product of an intelligence, when they see them.

Think about it.

There are signals all across the cosmos which can be attributed to stellar objects ranging from neutron stars and black holes, to gass nebulas and ordinary stars. SETI scans the stars for signals which do not fit into these categories and are not random in nature. We look for these types of signals because we produce them ourselves. A signal of this nature would indicate intelligent life. However it is signs of life. The intricate paterns in plants and the construction of behives shows that man is not alone in creating these types of patterns. Seen in this light even the inventions of man can be seen as natural products.

Perception depends on perspective.

But, BGood, this 1) isn't science, it's 2) creationism in disguise, 3) it's arguing from ignorance!

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But, BGood, this 1) isn't science, it's 2) creationism in disguise, 3) it's arguing from ignorance!

Do you suggest SETI should be looking for things which we cannot even imagine of?

Unfortunately the only examples of life are here on earth and thus our knowledge limited as to what may constitute signs of intelligent life.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But, BGood, this 1) isn't science, it's 2) creationism in disguise, 3) it's arguing from ignorance!

Do you suggest SETI should be looking for things which we cannot even imagine of?

Unfortunately the only examples of life are here on earth and thus our knowledge limited as to what may constitute signs of intelligent life.

No, I'm mocking you and all evolutionists by saying that SETI has the same problems has Intelligent Design...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But, BGood, this 1) isn't science, it's 2) creationism in disguise, 3) it's arguing from ignorance!

Do you suggest SETI should be looking for things which we cannot even imagine of?

Unfortunately the only examples of life are here on earth and thus our knowledge limited as to what may constitute signs of intelligent life.

No, I'm mocking you and all evolutionists by saying that SETI has the same problems has Intelligent Design...

How are you mocking Evolution by saying SETI has the same problems with ID? Of course it takes faith to continue in something like SETI, because as far as we know there is no other life out there.

People who back SETI beleive that the Universe is too large to have us be the only inhabitants, time will tell wether or not this is true.

SETI is an exploratory endeavor, it may be a systematic search but it is more in the realm of science fiction than science itself. However if a discovery is made mainstream science will be there.

*Sigh* You have no sense of humor...

People who back SETI beleive that the Universe is too large to have us be the only inhabitants, time will tell wether or not this is true.

This is an argument from incredulity though.

Of course it takes faith to continue in something like SETI, because as far as we know there is no other life out there.

Everything takes faith...including science :-p

I just thought of a question for those like BGood who debate against ID.

If DNA was changed by scientists, would it be possible or even conceivable that scientific methodologies could be produced to discover what would have likely been modified?

If not, does this not show limits on what truths science can tell us? If so, then where is the problem with ID?

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:I just thought of a question for those like BGood who debate against ID.

If DNA was changed by scientists, would it be possible or even conceivable that scientific methodologies could be produced to discover what would have likely been modified?

If not, does this not show limits on what truths science can tell us? If so, then where is the problem with ID?

Kurieuo

I don't debate against ID my problem lies with specified complexity and irreducible complexity.

But in answer to your question, genetic modification does allow experimentation which helps us determine what modifications can be made without causing life threatening mutations.

This sort of experimentation will only allow us to discover the bounds of allowable change. It will likely not illucidate on whether or not we were designed in the first place. This is indeed a limitation to science. However a signature of some sort found in the junk DNA which is impervious to change may point to nothing but I.D.

At first I think changes to existing physical features will be possible, such as the size and arrangement of bones, muscles, and other organ/tissues. Later changes to and additions of organ systems. It will be quite a long time before modifications to cellular chemistry will be fully understood and employed.

P.S. Kmart, I didn't see anything funny.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I just thought of a question for those like BGood who debate against ID.

If DNA was changed by scientists, would it be possible or even conceivable that scientific methodologies could be produced to discover what would have likely been modified?

If not, does this not show limits on what truths science can tell us? If so, then where is the problem with ID?

Kurieuo

I don't debate against ID my problem lies with specified complexity and irreducible complexity.

But in answer to your question, genetic modification does allow experimentation which helps us determine what modifications can be made without causing life threatening mutations.

This sort of experimentation will only allow us to discover the bounds of allowable change. It will not illucidate on whether or not we were designed in the first place. This is indeed a limitation to science.

At first I think changes to existing physical features will be possible, such as the size and arrangement of bones, muscles, and other organ/tissues. Later changes to and additions of organ systems. It will be quite a long time before modifications to cellular chemistry will be fully understood and employed.

I think my question may have been missed. Given genetic modifications were made within a laboratory, if another group of scientists were handed such a modified form without any information that it had been modified, isn't it conceivable that they could work out it had been intelligently modified by examining the modified form and following some sort of methodology?

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:I think my question may have been missed. Given genetic modifications were made within a labratory, if another group of scientists were handed such a modified form without any information that it had been modified, isn't it conceivable they might be able to work out it had been intelligently modified by examining the modified form and following some sort of methodology?Kurieuo

Guess I can cancel my PM since you have rephrased the question.
Yes, it is possible for certain modifications that a second group of scientists would be very certain that someone had been tinkering with the DNA. For other modifications it would not be clear.